AIRSEMESTER 1, 2015 GUO YU 634209ABPL30048 STUDIO 04 GEOFF KIMM

CONTENTS

Introduction

PART A. Conceptualisation

PART B. Criteria Design

PART C. Project Proposal

01

02

00

00

01

INTRODUCTION

My name is Hugo Yu. And just as most of my colleagues do, my experience over digital

design mainly comes from Virtual Environments. To me, ‘parametricism’ is a rather familiar yet distant term. My favourite architects has always been the ones who thrives in the parametric paradigm of design. Those global big names of cause. However personally, I am still considering myself a newbie in this realm.

In the past years of study. I have always stayed conservative to my own design language. Or in other words, focusing on formal expression rather than technical process. Not because I am incapable or disliked the style, but is because I wish to focus more on the actual concept that I propose. Perhaps, the Rhino and Panelling Tool introduction from Virtual really hasn’t provide me enough design gestures. To allow me use it freely and explore new techniques.

However, a unique intern experience at an architectural firm called EWS in Shanghai over the past holiday gives me an alert on my current state of mind. Simply by observe the professional design process as a whole, gives me a completely new take on architecture. And of cause there is Grasshopper.

The firm’s lead designer demonstrated to me how important it is to have a consistent and accurate data flow as the basis for future design documentation

or BIM. And how timesaving it can be by using Grasshopper as the main modeling tool. And above all else, how Grasshopper is different to all other modelling tools, which allows designers to explore new ways of making architecture.

It is absolutely fascinating to me how efficient they work. And most importantly, as a team. I am now eager to equip myself with a range of digital modelling skill. Not just because I want to survive in this coming new age of computational design, but simply because I wish to become a competent designer.

At last, I think the great controversy over parametric architectural design in the past decade has only making this style more appealing. However, it is absolutely critical to all of us designers, to introspect constantly as we dive deeper into the digital field. What and how should architecture be responsible for the climate change, the increasing population, the ethnic issue, the political matter, the moral consequences and the people, in which our design serves.

I believe, no matter how advance the technology will be in the future. Our role as designers or architects will never change. That is to create something that is truly liveable and for the greater goods of the next generation, and bring nature ever closer to the heart of humanity.

Who / What / How

02

PART A. Conceptualisation

A.1. Design Futuring

A.2. Design Computation

A.3. Composition/Generation

A.4. Conclusion

A.5. Learning Outcomes

A.6. Appendix

Reference

03

05

09

13

13

14

15

03

A.1. DESIGN FUTURING

In recent years, architecture as a discourse has been converged into an increasingly pluralistic field of

study, seemingly as a ‘molecular compound’ in my opinion. (Which at the same time is extremely unstablised) As indicated in the reading as well as in the lecture, the works of contemporary architecture are becoming more and more process based. But at the same time, common understandings and public enforcements is still the predominant driving force that pushes architecture into an utilitarian track. In this case, ‘Design Futuring’ is nothing but an amalgamate that having the two sides juxtaposed into one single collage. From this point, today’s architects start to spread this argument across globally and starting to implement their own understandings into practice.

BanQ restaurant (fig.i ) is an interior design, focusing on the renovation of an existing context-an old savings bank.1 The overall geometry of the design is an undulating wave of wood slats that is intended to set a dynamic dining atmosphere.1 It is intended to showcase the idea of a futuristic design under a traditional framework. However, unlike other similar designs that essentially utilise the Grasshopper script for sectioning and produce an inner skin. BanQ is trying to acknowledge the existing room structurally by suggesting no new columns or walls. It does not suggest a recreation of the room, but is re-

imagining how people can generate a sort of new understanding of the old building. Perhaps in a poetic manner, it is trying to mirror the old building’s persona to the interior and gives it an up-to-date virtual make-up.

On the other hand however, the VCA Centre for Ideas (fig.ii) are a complete clash of the traditional and the virtual. It is trying to convey a conflicting yet appealing set moment of becoming. The force in which the two opposites applies on each other, is shown continuously throughout the interior and the exterior. It clearly instigates the merging of the two sides by using a coherent materiality throughout. But is also able to show the inharmonious, by the rude formal interruptions. The use of Voronoi as the basic algorithmic principle is quite obvious on the intendedly virtual part of the design. However, the other part is not as so obvious. Seemingly modernist styled, which clearly differentiates itself with its counterpart. According to MvS’s own description, the textured reflective stainless steel facade is intended to reify the building.10 Personally, I take this as adding vagueness to the mixture. Making a ‘fuzzy’ impression, in order to distinguish itself from the rest of its habitat.

Base on the lecturer and reading, design can be interpreted as direct interaction of natural system with man-made system and in two ways: nature adaptive or man-made serves

nature.3 In this case, none of the two can be considered as nature adaptive. However, the two do have different takes on the same theory.

In the case of BanQ restaurant, the skeleton of the wood slats has been set by the existing infrastructures and functional arrangements.1 The slats serves as a medium in-between the two, creates a seamless conjunction for human to interact with it. The VCA is less ambiguous as it makes nature to be more of a bystander.

On the first sight, BanQ reminds me of the famous Metropol Parasol design by J. Mayer H.11 Although, these two are based on slightly different computational design process. Both are intended to rejuvenate an old inhabitant community. The VCA Centre for Ideas on the other hand, has a clear continuation relationship with the HygroSkin-Meteorosensitive Pavilion design by Achim Menges Architect4. The latter has a more elaborated analogy for its structural openings based on studies of climate-responsive materials.

Nonetheless, both typologies has been practised by architects across globally. However, I do prefer the more tactile intention of BanQ and how it really concerns about the role of design as an agency in-between nature and man, rather than a human centric conceptual debate.

BanQ / Office dA VCA Centre for Ideas / MvS

04

i.

ii.

05

iii.

06

A.2. DESIGN COMPUTATIONMUMUTH Music Theatre / UNStudio

From Ben van Berkel’s, the lead architect of UNStudio own words: “The three most important

architectural potentials of the new mediation techniques are: the expansion of the spatial imagination, the radical break with a hierarchical design approach, and the introduction of different disciplines into the design process, relating the design immediately to its final execution”.2 I think this statement concisely explains the effect of mediation techniques, in my opinion another phrase that can be used for design computation on contemporary architecture.

From reading, we are informed that design computation is not merely a tool to generate formal or rational ideas.5 In the case of MUMUTH, the

process is not just a translation from the sketch (fig.iv) to the actual (fig.iii) Although at first glance, it seems like that his design approach is very much a form-based analogy from ‘Serialism’ music into an intertwining spirals that extends both vertically and diagonally generated by computational process.7

But the actual effect of this process is allowing van Berkel to apply his spatio-psychologic study and combine it with computing produced a series of flowing, movement-based volumes.7

The hand sketches are merely a mimicry of an actual performance. However, the actual design is not just about the ‘Performance’, but rather a performance list of elements that contribute to the whole design. This list is based on van Berkel and his

team reestablishing a relationship between music and architecture. From rhythms, continuity, channeling and more importantly the use of repetition as it intensify the overall effect of the design.7 It becomes truly imaginative.

Last but not least, is van Berkel’s believe on a multi-disciplinary design approach, which is the basis for bringing computation to reality. In my opinion, this building is in fact a redefinition of architectural practice in theatre designs. From this precedent, I think a truly good computing process must be achieved by innovating computational details at the same time while dealing with the broad picture of design. In other words, a strategy that is more focused on the detail-to-whole relationship.8

iv.

07

A.2. DESIGN COMPUTATIONPrototype Aggregate Architecture 2011 / ICD

I must confess, I was absolutely blow away by merely the complexity of the Prototype Aggregate Architecture

2011. And the sheer multitude of individual components, which is called ‘granules’ in this case and its responsive interlocking mechanism.6 This project can be clearly identified as an Adaptive Architecture as its ability to reconfigure into any assembly systems.6 However on the contrary, it does have certain shortcomings that is necessary to take note of and possibly to improve in the future.

First of all, computational process plays a vital role in this project. The challenge here is not to set an overall parameter but rather individual ones for each of the granules. Allowing them to have prospective ability. (fig.

v, vi) Combining this with the intrinsic granular structure of each individual piece, can then be assembled into clumps, walls or even domes.6

This design also suggests a closer responsibilities of architects, animators, robotic engineers and structural engineers to collaborate together. Each of them contribute in different fields in this particular practice. Whereas architects and structural engineers needs to deal with the algorithmic model and mathematics, robotic engineers needs to innovate a new assembly or ‘pouring’ process for the granules. Animators can simulate the process by performing a range of simulated benchmarks prior to the final pour.6

These simulation tests are particularly appealing to me. As demonstrated in figure vii, the process is intended to investigate the feasibility of the project as well as potential failures and the ability to deform or reform that may occur during the pouring process.6 Beyond this, a physical test (fig. viii) is also undertaken to investigate its ability to perform structural reconfiguration.6

At last, this concept suggests a very promising architectural morphology. However, some underlying elements are still missing, such as the ability to apply and investigate speed, contact points and force networks.6 Nonetheless, I am certainly interested, and perhaps having my own concept based this project.

vi.

08

v.

vii. viii.

09

ix.

10

A.3. COMPOSITION / GENERATIONResearch Pavilion 2013-14 / ICD / ITKE

How can man if ever find the perfect balance with nature? (Or is there really suppose to

be a balance) Isn’t all matters what we create and make (no matter based on however ‘biomimicry’ or nature inspired process) still a part of our subjective wishful insistences? Can biological analysis really apply to a much larger scale, for instance a landscape design or even urban planning? And if there is ought to be a difference between ‘God’ (as the genesis) creates human and the rest of the nature, then why should we be wishful to go against it? I carry these questions from the lecture and reading, and start to look into the two precedents of this week.

By definition, ‘biomimicry is an approach to innovation that seeks sustainable solutions to human challenges by emulating nature’s time-tested patterns and strategies.’ In the Research Pavilion 2013-14 this has been applied quite literally, the basic algorithms for the pavilion’s component is coming from a beetle’s microscopic section of its elytron.11

(fig.x) The project has an incredible synergy from multi-disciplinary. At the core of this synergy is a computational process which serves not just as a design tool, but also as an communicational agent in-between each of the fields of study.11 As a result, the goal of achieving an extremely lightweight and structurally rigid shell is nicely met

with great efficiency. (fig.ix)

However, the shortcomings of biomimicry in this case has also been demonstrated quite well by this project. Despite the main purpose of the structure is to demonstrate the potential of a bio-inspired, robotic manufactured and computational generated design. It has by no means to seek a sustainable solution (which is one of the most important aspect of biomimicry), and the only challenge that has been set is very much a self-appointed one. Not only is the material used (carbon fibre and fiberglass mainly) extremely costly and unsustainable. More importantly, it also hasn’t shown the critical relationship of the structure to the audiences of the system, or any of its potential applications to a bigger global system. A biological creature such as a beetle has its elytron protect their vulnerable wings not because it wanted to, but is because of natural selection choose this is a better way in the subsystem within the greater ecologic system and not just for the goods of the specie itself, but for the entire earth ecology.

Right now, I think the question is really towards biomimicry itself. It is commonly misunderstood as a form-finder rather than a guideline towards sustainable future. However, such project as this is unmistakably a great way to seek for new future possibilities.

x.

11

A.3. COMPOSITION / GENERATIONJyväskylä Music and Arts Center / Ocean North + Archim Menges

Nature inspired process doesn’t necessarily have to come from organisms. Besides the living

forms, nature can be everywhere, including the very air that we breath in. It is then crucial in my mind, to choose the most suitable natural morphology rather than the most appealing depends on the given context of the building. What are the set criteria and what guidelines should we be following is absolutely critical.

In the case of Jyväskylä (fig. xi), the information provided and outlined has been separated into several layers. Three gradient maps are placed on the x, y and z plane of the building’s outer envelope accordingly to the structural, sonic and luminous performative traits.9 (fig.xv) Then a cloud of seeds were grown densely or sparsely according to the gradient map, as well as being mindful of the distance and angle between each of its neighboring seeds.9 (fig.xii) The script behind all these process is quite unique as it allows these seeds to then become the strut for its lattice system.9 (fig xiii, xiv) By taking full advantage of such parametric thinking, and generating three layers of lattice that allows the lattice network not only to be freestanding on its own but also differentiate all the functional parts of the Art centre.

However, despite the natural oriented growth system of the

building. The project is not completed in reality. I think this demonstrates another major issue about nature inspired generation process. That is the tendency to overcomplicate. An architectural design is ultimately intended to become a real object. However, this really requires communication between multiple disciplinary.

Unlike the previous ICD pavilion which has a fully elaborated strategy for its fabrication from the beginning of realising the basic geometry up until the final robotic installment. Ocean North provides no indication of how this project can be fabricated. What material it is actually going to use. And hasn’t really justify the necessity of such vast quantity of lattice used. In other words, the goal of creating the mega-structure within a small building envelope is sightly unnecessary under its set context of Music and Arts Centre.

The point we may learn from this project is how important it is to not study the site and brief separately. Which is the main course of an overelaborated structure in this case. If approaching to a similarly performance based algorithm thinking, it is then necessary at one point of the process to simplify the performatives according to the actual need from the actual context.

xi.

xii.

12xiii. xiv. xv.

13

A.5. LEARNING OUTCOMES

A.4. CONCLUSION

Architecture is part of the natural instinct of human creating. The concern over what is the

correct way of creating is essentially a pointless one. The matter is really about how much better can we create. Whether it is based on the formal debate, or the nature analogy, what is really matters is still the people we need to serve, the ecosystem we must maintain and the future path that we may suggest. And the coconsciousness of these events is the upmost critical.

To conclude the research and thinking at this point, there are definitely

a few key points. Design as a future generative process, has its responsibility to resolve the current conflict and keep up a recreational process. Computational design is also necessary not just for its form-finding capabilities, but also for its ability to synergise multi-disciplinary as well as communicate in-between techniques. However, it is also important to not be overdriven by the process itself which may result in unusable or irrational creations. Whilst nature adaptation is efficient and crucial for the species or ecosystem they serve, it is not so for the benefit of human society.

Based on the above conclusions. Living architecture is going to be focused on the natural habitants of the Merri Creek ecosystem, predominantly human, fauna and flora (the three subsystems). It is not to seek for balance, but to amplify the unbalanced. Or in other words, to showcase what is the most efficient and performative responsive system for each one of the three subsystems. And from which the goal is to conduct a overlap of these responses into one. It should not be located as a pinpointed structure, but as a small series of subcultures that grows accordingly to the local needs.

Part A has been an invaluable learning experience to me. At the beginning of the semester I was

really uncertainly of what is to expect from a computational design process other than a ‘digitally elaborated building skin panels’. (My previous assumption on parametricism) But by understanding the full capability of computational design. I think it really deserves much attention from me.

As I have mentioned at the beginning of the introduction, I was a extremely concept driven designer. And it is always perplexed to me how many

architects nowadays are being dishonest to themselves in terms of conceptual design. Ironically however, such dishonesty I have just found within myself during the last few weeks. I have always been very subjective in terms of design decisions rather than objectively criticise. Which is the upmost benefit from a computational design process. A simply unbiased justification.

During my last summer internship, a project I have encountered is to design a little pavilion for a zoo in Haikou, China. The pavilion design is all upon

my shoulders, for the first time as a professional architect. However, the concept was simply undefined and the pavilion I end up making is just a series of undulating sectioning that was created without Grasshopper. Which is exceptionally difficult for later drafting as construction drawings.

However, I do have a strong hope for the future and the rest modules of Studio Air. The unexplored parts of design for me now is ever widened. And with most of my concepts now set, I would now approach to this project with much circumspection.

14

A.6. APPENDIXAlgorithmic Sketches

The goal of this script is to achieve a spiral effect such as the MUMUTH of the UNStudio. But I think in the end it is still very much limited to the x,y and z planes that means I should explore more on the a diagonal relationship between the planes.

15

REFERENCE1 ArchDaily, BanQ / Office dA (03 Dec 2009) <http://www.archdaily.com/42581/banq-office-da/> [accessed 6 March 2015].

2 Ben Van Berkel, ‘Mediation’, AVOCAAD, , (1999), 41-46, in CuminCAD <http://cumincad.scix.net.ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/data/works/att/9dff.content.pdf> [accessed 13 March 2015].

3 Tony Fry, ‘Design Futuring: Sustainability, Ethics and New Practice’, Oxford: Berg, , (2008), 1–16.

4 HygroSkin-Meteorosensitive Pavilion / Achim Menges Architect + Oliver David Krieg + Steffen Reichert (2013) <http://www.archdaily.com/424911/hygroskin-meteorosensitive-pavilion-achim-menges-architect-in-collaboration-with-oliver-david-krieg-and-steffen-reichert/> [accessed 6 March 2015].

5 Yehuda E. Kalay, ‘Architecture’s New Media: Principles, Theories, and Methods of Computer-Aided Design ‘, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, , (2004), 5-25.

6 Karola Dierichs, Achim Menges, ‘Aggregate Architecture: Simulation Models for Synthetic Non-convex Granulates’, ACADIA, , (2013), 301-310, in CuminCAD <http://cumincad.scix.net.ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/data/works/att/acadia13_301.content.pdf> [accessed 13 March 2015].

7 Marcus Fairs, MUMUTH by UNStudio (2009) <http://www.dezeen.com/2009/02/19/mumuth-by-unstudio/> [accessed 13 March 2015].

8 Mark Garcia, ‘Future Details of UNStudio Architectures: An Interview with Ben van Berke’, Architectural Design, 84.4, (2014), 52-61.

9 Michael Hensel, Achim Menges, ‘Differentiation and performance: multi-performance architectures and modulated environments’, Architectural Design, 76.2, (2006), 60-69.

10 Minifie van Schaik Architects, Centre for Ideas (2001) <http://www.mvsarchitects.com.au/doku.php?id=home:projects:victorian_college_of_the_arts> [accessed 6 March 2015].

11 Moritz Dörstelmann, Marshall Prado, Stefana Parascho, Jan Knippers, Achim Menges, ‘Integrative computational design methodologies for modular architectural fiber composite morphologies’, ACADIA, , (2014), 219-228, in CuminCAD <http://cumincad.scix.net/data/works/att/acadia14_219.content.pdf> [accessed 18 March 2015].

12 Sebastian Jordana, J. Mayer H. Architects’ Metropol Parasol opening this Sunday (2011) <http://www.archdaily.com/122621/j-mayer-h-architects-metropol-parasol-opening-this-sunday/> [accessed 6 March 2015].

16

PART B. Criteria Design

B.1. Research Fields

B.2. Case Study 1.0

B.3. Case Study 2.0

B.4. Technique: Development

B.5. Technique: Prototypes

B.6. Technique: Proposal

B.7. Learning Objectives and Outcomes

B.8. Appendix

17

19

23

25

31

35

37

38

17

B.1. RESEARCH FIELDSTesselation as Reciprocal System

Tesselation in my mind is without a doubt one of the hottest topics among many in contemporary

architecture. The fundamental of this style of design is to generate a tesselated or divided surface/mesh, then apply some sort of morphology to either provide structure support as well as a pattern of interest. It differs itself from patterning as it is in many cases self-supporting and to biomimicry as it is more arbitrary and process driven.

My personal interest in this case is to investigate the idea of reciprocal system. The reciprocal system in

definition is rather simply to have interconnected elements that can not only self-support but also retain a certain degree of stress. It has more formal freedom and ability to adapt to its environment than the traditional column/slab based design.

A few projects done by other famous architects have become the starting point of this field of research. Such as the Dermoid Pavilion by Daniel Davis, which incorporates a complex connection system. The Reciprocal Frame by Annette Sipro that has a randomized composition and plate

tectonic. And similar work done by Nathan Melenbrink, Samo Pedersen and Shibu Raman is a rather interesting one that utilize the frame to generate a lighting effect.

I think however, all these projects are more or less based on a rather simple overall shape. In this case, my project later on should be based on their concept on adapt further into its potential applications on a more complex, ‘real-world’ scenario. So I think before I should go deeper into this field of research. I must at first learn to create complex tesselations.

18

19

B.2. CASE STUDY 1.0Aranda Lash - The Morning Line

The Morning Line created by architect Aranda Lash utilizes biomimicry as the starting point

of its project. However, It then started to generate a series of interpolate curves that is connecting in-between each endpoints and mid points of each subsystem. I think the overall morphology has a great potential in the field of tesselation that provides evenly shaped but varyingly sized surfaces.

The below list of species is a investigation on the full potential of this script as what modification or change in sequence or change in inputs can be made to make a more interesting result. For the final four outcomes, my selection criteria was to find the moderately even surface that is interesting enough and easier to work with or develop further.

Specie 1: Modification on the number of sides.Iteration 1: Three sidesIteration 2: Four sidesIteration 3: Five sidesIteration 4: Six sidesIteration 5: Seven sides

Specie 2: Tesselation of TesselationIteration 1: Tesselation on three sidesIteration 2: Tesselation on trimmed three sidesIteration 3: Subdivision of tesselation

on trimmed three sidesIteration 4: Tesselation of tesselation on trimmed three sidesIteration 5: Tesselation of tesselation of tesselated trimmed three sides.

Specie 3: Modification on the curveIteration 1: Maximum variationIteration 2: Minimum variationIteration 3: Curve on tesselated surfaceIteration 4: Curve on tesselation of tesselated surfaceIteration 5: Graft curves

Specie 4: Differently shaped variation #1Iteration 1: Triangular inputIteration 2: Spherical inputIteration 3: Cube inputIteration 4: Polyline inputIteration 5: Nurbs Curve input

Specie 5: Differently shaped variation #2Iteration 1: Triangular inputIteration 2: Spherical inputIteration 3: Cube inputIteration 4: Polyline inputIteration 5: Nurbs Curve input

Specie 6: Differently shaped variation #3Iteration 1: Triangular inputIteration 2: Spherical inputIteration 3: Cube inputIteration 4: Polyline inputIteration 5: Nurbs Curve input

The Final 4: Criteria of Selection for choice 1: Evenly distributed surfaceCriteria of Selection for choice 2: Ordered line workCriteria of Selection for choice 3: Good layering of linesCriteria of Selection for choice 4: Good overall dynamic

20

21

B.2. CASE STUDY 1.0Matrix of Iterations

Specie 1: Specie 2: Specie 3: Specie 4:

22

Specie 4: Specie 5: Specie 6:

23

B.3. CASE STUDY 2.0ICD/ITKE Research Pavilion 2011

The ICD/ITKE Research Pavilion 2011 is a one of the annual research project run by ICD/

ITKE. In this particular installment, the project team is aiming to develop a dome shaped pavilion with tesselated surface that is inspired by a biomimicry process.

The basis of this grasshopper is to utilize the kangaroo add-on by providing it a base pattern grid. Then

allow it to generate the outer shell of the pavilion following the outline curves. The next step is to morph the curves inwards which eventually forms a tesselated surface. This surface can then be used to create perforation or panels around it . I think this script will provide me with a good starting point as well as general kangaroo technique over the form finding possibilities of my final design.

PatternCatenary

ForceBoundary

Curves

24

CatenaryForce

Morph Mesh

25

B.4. TECHNIQUE: DEVELOPMENTMatrix of Iterations - Modification

The first matrix is basically a modification of the kangaroo settings, as well as stopping kangaroo at different times to test its full potential as a

form-finding technique.

The iterations involving change the catenary force and the strength for the frame. It is clear how the variety of outcomes are generally different to each

other. Where perfect balance between string force and catenary may create the most elegant solution. The others can also be considered as workable or even generative according to different site conditions.

The second matrix revolves around the smae investigation to the first one, but with different ourline curves used for the kangaroo script.

26

Matrix of Iterations - Modification

other. Where perfect balance between string force and catenary may create the most elegant solution. The others can also be considered as workable or even generative according to different site conditions.

The second matrix revolves around the smae investigation to the first one, but with different ourline curves used for the kangaroo script.

27

B.4. TECHNIQUE: DEVELOPMENTMatrix of Iterations - Morphology

For the third technique, I was looking for a way to find good patterns as the basis for the kangaroo script. I

started by a rigid hexagonal grid, then start to implement a random variation to it.

I then started to look at maybe implementing attractor points into the

grid and the goal there was to have a more complex pattern distribution on the surface.

Then I briefly tried to morph the outcome grid that is influenced by a several attractor points. However, I soon realized that it is very difficult to actually have such grid on a kangaroo

generated surface. Since kangaroo script will always set to stress the grid and change the already attracted pattern.

So I eventually changed my development direction to officially start looking into the reciprocal frame system.

28

Matrix of Iterations - Reciprocal Tessellation Study

Divide DomainSurface

ClosestPoints

ListEndpoints

SweepRectangle

SurfaceEdge

ExtendCurves

The basis of this reciprocal grid script in grasshopper is to have a base surface first. Then apply divide domain surface to divide the surface into rectangular grid according to the surface curvature. The benefit of using divide domain is that it provide me U and V value which can be easily altered to change the spacing of the grid.

Secondly, the grid curve is produced by surface edge. And each endpoints shall be listed and find its closest points on the adjacent curve according to the degree of rotation. The curves are then extended to it and finally sweeped with rectangle or any kind of section curves.

Using sweep can also let me create either sheets or stick members for further detail investigation.

In this first series of development, I used one consistent and relatively simple surface for investigation. To control the outcome.

29

B.4. TECHNIQUE: DEVELOPMENTMatrix of Iterations - Reciprocal Tessellation Development

This series of further development on the reciprocal script is to test its full potential. From changing

the basic surface to change the connection types.

I discovered that at certain points such as a too great U/V value or degree of rotation will cause the sturcture to be

fragmented.

Overall I am satisfied with the result of this development. And I think I should try to combine what I have learned from the kangaroo tesselation with this.

30

Matrix of Iterations - Reciprocal Tessellation Detailing

Detailing for joinings is one essential part of this subject. In this development series. I

investigated a range of join types that can be used.

I think the sheet joining is the most promising as it is more structurally rigid and can potentially provide more of a interesting shadow.

31

B.5. TECHNIQUE: PROTOTYPES

The main goal of my prototype is to test the workability of a reciprocal frame. I have chose to work with

a rectangular order that is not only easier to work with but is also given me a chance to test how difficult it is to create a relatively simply but just a bit complex surface.

The most important message I got from the first model is that I must adapt carefully of my earlier formal investigations into my final design. It is clear that this model does not hold itself up and the join type is not actually reciprocal, as they are not self-supporting. However, it does give me a chance to run the brief process and helped me to discover that it would be difficult to get all the joins right, even

by using a laser cutter. It also gives me a good perspective of what kind of shadow effect I will get by using this frame type.

The second prototype is a brief test on the actual 3-way reciprocal subsystem. The result of this model is quite good. And the reciprocal system worked rather well as it doesn’t require much glue compare to the first model. However, during the fabrication process, I discovered that this particular frame type is way too difficult to assembly. Since all the sticks are never on the same plane. And it would also require me to have a fairly sophisticated and flexible join system to make this work.

For the final prototype I produced. I was aiming to investigate the sheet connection type. I which all members of the reciprocal subsystem are interlocked into each other. It does obviously enhance the strength, and rigidity of the structure. But it also creates a bigger issue of how much degree of tolerance I must create for those connections if I want it to work on a complex surface. I clearly labeled and listed print job for the laser cutter is obligatory and I perhaps will also need to manually fix some of it. This provides me a question of what type of material I should use for the final. Should it be able to manually workable as well as laser-proof.

32

33

34

35

B.5. TECHNIQUE: PROPOSAL

The site I have chosen for the final design is located roughly at the centre of the entire given site. It is

close to the outfall of the Merri Creek to the Yarra River. And sits in-between North Fitzroy and Thomas Embling Hospital. It also sit right beneath the Labyrinth.

The reason I choose this site is because it has a good balance between being isolated as well as connected with the rest of the city and the creek natural environments. It labyrinth can be working literally as a reciprocal to the chosen site as they can help to provide a point of interest for each of them. A few Reserve and Oval indicates that there must be a moderate amount

of people who would go through the site everyday. The sitting area on top of the cliff that is inside the chosen site also given me an opportunity to enhance it and make it more usable and sheltered.

The cliff it self also provides a interesting landscape feature for the site and can be utilized as the basis for my structure to either follow the topography, grow on top of it, or go completely against the shape.

There are also a descent amount of open areas for the structure support to be built on and the view on top of the cliff over the Merri Creek can really be the selling point of my project.

Based on the above explanations, the conclusion to my proposal based on what I already have from part A, is really to make a small series of reciprocal structure that can be used as both a shelter and a interactive place for people to enjoy the natural landscape of Merri Creek. It should also be interesting enough and work as a landmark for those who want to seek for the upper Labyrinth. Finally, the structure should be reusable and replaceable for other variations or other uses.

36

37

B.7. LEARNING OBJECTIVES AND OUTCOMES

From part B, I have started to look more deeply into the field of visual scripting and creating in a digital

realm.

It is really frustrating at first to lost the usual pen and pencil completely and rely solely on computer. However, I think time and practice have really help me to develop a moderately rudimental skills for grasshopper.

As for the project and the prototypes I have created. I think I have also developed a range of outcomes that is sophisticated enough for the challenge in part C.

38

B.8. APPENDIX